Srsly, no-one going with the "it's free real estate" meme.
Jokingly, but also really, seems a waste. I get they don't want the overhead, but just boost it north, perhaps to a Lagrange, maybe just high orbit, but someone will come along to salvage eventually...
ETA: Also, one of the beauties of SpaceX is that Musk doesn't muck with it (yet), working too well without him, unlike everything else he's bollocksed up.
L1 is sunwards, L2 is counter-sunwards, L3 is on the other side of the Sun, L4 is Eastwards, and L5 is Westwards.
Going from LEO to L1/L2, requires a ∆v of 7.5km/s, which is comparable to the 9.4km/s ∆v required to go from Earth surface to LEO.
Meanwhile, the ISS keeps getting slowed down by Earth's atmosphere, and it only takes a ∆v of 1km/s or less, to plunge it into denser atmosphere for reentry.
It makes me really sad that the space station is going to be destroyed since I always really liked it, but the sheer amount of fuel needed to move it to a stable position makes me (begrudgingly) understand why they're going to do it...
Anyone able to put the deltaV into tons of fuel needed for this manoeuvre? Extra points if you can do the full thing of getting the fuel to the station.
It really is a shame though, its such an iconic structure. Would be nice if we could class it an the 8th wonder of the world but dont know enough about classification to know if it even could be.
I did that and it was a mess, with warnings about being unable to backup that I couldn't get rid of. I had to reinstall to try to turn off syncing, then remove again. But it's so integrated that my desktop is still under a OneDrive subfolder and it's still referenced in various places.
Is there a guide to completely removing this from Windows 11 cleanly?
You can disable so-called essential components and I believe it ships without almost any of the bloat. So essentially you could just take one drive out, or not have it in the first place. Or at least that's my hope
Looking at the logs if my Stable horde worker, more then half of requests made were to generate porn. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot regardless of if the filter worked as intended.
Hell yeah! Nothing good comes from their new model, nor the advertiser-friendly focus of SD3. They were good for pushing the open-source ecosystem forward, but clearly their Capitalist masters have come calling, and they're enshittifying.
SpaceX's track record for orbital insertion definitely had something to do with that. When last I knew, N-G didn't have its own launch facilities (that might've changed in the last few years but I doubt it).
The space station's orbit has been adjusted continuously over its lifetime initially by attaching a shuttle to it and doing a burn of the shuttle's engines and later doing the same with progress modules.
My bet is the original expectation of the designers was to deorbit by attaching centaurs (or whatever) to the existing docking ports and rotate the beast to the right attitude for a deorbit burn.
NASA has more recently said they want the reentry to be as steep as possible to minimize the size of the debris field, and is using that to justify the development of a new specialized deorbit vehicle. No doubt SpaceX will declare that Starship is the proper vehicle for this, and then will plow the $800 million into the Starship program. The money they got for Artemus is already long gone and Starship has failed to demonstrate key components of the Artemus plan. Dear Moon has been cancelled so NASA and Artemus are the only customers they have left. NASA knows that without a cash injection Artemus is at risk.
One of Starship's engines on the lowest setting would tear the station apart. Regardless of whether they make this based on Starship instead of something more reasonably sized like a Dragon or Falcon 2nd stage, it'll still need either a new engine design or a big cluster of Dracos. It'll be something custom.
Regarding their Artemis work- the payments are milestone based, so they get money as they pass milestones. Engine relights and ship to ship prop transfer are some of the next ones.
Regarding their other customers- the Starship manifest includes another moon cruise, several satellite launches, and a lot of Starlinks.
It is been a plan for a while in the USA to shift launches from government run to private run for over a decade. This is just an implementation of that strategy.
Longer - fifteen, closer to twenty years. It took this long for there to be one or two companies that they could be sure wouldn't just cut and run (especially given how cutthroat the aerospace industry is).
They have had a plan for it, from the very beginning. Big-budget space projects like ISS don't get anywhere without a wrap-up plan. ISS is in LEO, and its mass contraindicates moving it into a graveyard orbit. Conventionally, stuff in LEO gets de-orbited; same thing happened with Skylab in '79.
Wait, how is Starship failing? They successfully returned from re-entry and made a soft landing with both the booster and starship itself. Seems to me that it's well on track?
Keep in mind that "having a plan", doesn't say when that plan is to be executed.
If you asked me, every object launched into orbit, should have a safe de-orbit plan beforehand. Chances are, as more private entities get onboard launching space stations, there might be regulations put in place to require a de-orbit plan for the launch to get approved.
Getting a de-orbit plan for the ISS now, might be just a preemptive plan for when those regulations get enacted.
Agreed, though NASA is definitely planning to Deorbit the ISS, probably sometime after 2030.
They're not trying to get ahead of some regulation, but want to stop having to spend so many resources on maintaining it, when they could be doing other things.
IIRC Russia was talking about detaching their modules and using them to help bootstrap some new station. So I dunno if those will get brought down.
That being said, that was also when that rather pugnacious guy was running Roscosmos, and I dunno if doing a new space station is the top of Russia's priority list for their limited budget.
The Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex (Russian: Орбитальный Пилотируемый Сборочно-Экспериментальный Комплекс, Orbital'nyj Pilotirujemyj Sborochno-Eksperimental'nyj Kompleks;[1][2] ОПСЭК, OPSEK) was a 2009–2017 proposed third-generation Russian modular space station for low Earth orbit. The concept was to use OPSEK to assemble components of crewed interplanetary spacecraft destined for the Moon, Mars, and possibly Saturn. The returning crew could also recover on the station before landing on Earth. Thus, OPSEK could form part of a future network of stations supporting crewed exploration of the Solar System.
In early plans, the station was to consist initially of several modules from the Russian Orbital Segment (ROS) of the International Space Station (ISS). However, after studying the feasibility of this, the head of Roscosmos stated in September 2017 the intention to continue working together on the ISS.[3] In April 2021, Roscosmos officials announced plans to exit from the ISS programme after 2024, stating concerns about the condition of its aging modules. The OPSEK concept had by then evolved into plans for the Russian Orbital Service Station (ROSS), which would be built without modules from the ISS, and was anticipated to be launched starting in the mid-2020s.[4][5]
The Russian Orbital Service Station (Russian: Российская орбитальная служебная станция, Rossiyskaya orbital'naya sluzhebnaya stantsiya) (ROSS, Russian: РОСС)[3] is a proposed Russian orbital space station scheduled to begin construction in 2027. Initially an evolution of the Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex (OPSEK) concept, ROSS developed into plans for a new standalone Russian space station built from scratch without modules from the Russian Orbital Segment of the ISS.[4]
I still dunno if they're gonna get the money for a new space station. Like, deciding to have a war in Ukraine may have kind of killed off the viability of doing a new space station.
There's no way Russia builds a new station. The timeline for them getting Nauka to orbit basically proves that it's impossible. They've been trying to buddy up with China to visit theirs, though.
That's your takeaway? It's like Walmart moving into a town and undercutting indie business prices until the indie businesses close, then raising prices.
What doordash is doing is scraping restaurants' websites for prices, taking a temporary loss, then going to the restaurants saying, "We got all these orders, it's a win for both of us!" to sell the contact, then raising prices and tacking on extra fees, making money off the restaurants and the customers
Especially at the prices the bill comes out to be. I had a day years ago where my car was in the shop, so I used one of them to get lunch. A $10 sandwich ended up costing me $30, and some people do this every day. Fuck avocado toast (which is delicious), this is why people are broke.
I'm not sure the comparison is quite apt, I'm not familiar with any independent food delivery services beyond just asking your buddy to grab some snacks on the way over for a hangout or something.
But I am vaguely familiar with the idea of loss-leading and think its despicable. If no regulation is ever going stand in the way of practices, then knowing they're being exploited by folks like pizza dude makes me feel a bit better, at least.
In some ways, loss leading can be done in more or less ethical ways. For instance, a small mom n pop hardware loss leading on lumbar or hammers and taking a reasonable profit on ten penny nails. Or something, maybe a better example is the Costco 1.50 all beef foot-long dog and soda but their memberships are reasonable profit for those who would go often enough and buy enough to make it worth it. It's late and I'm tired, I hope you get the general gist. But yes, doordash is just double-dipping on the sleazy. And maybe loss leading isn't ever acceptable, but I'm simply unaware/haven't thought of reasons that make it so. I'm willing to hear any argument against any of it, though.
The bottom has dropped out of the OEM software licence market. Microsoft have to find a different way of making money.
Their loss-leading hardware sales have not borne fruit so they are getting desperate.
All they have left is services, which means that the only way the can actually make money is selling out their customers private information.
Remember what that landscape looked like. The only major players we know today that existed then are Microsoft and Apple, and Apple had just been bailed out by MS to get in front of antitrust issues. Amazon existed as a bookstore, Google was not around yet, Facebook would still be several years out ... MySpace wasn't yet around. AOL was still a behemoth. Adobe sold perpetual licenses.
Google was the first example I thought of, because they were founded in 1998, solidly before the dotcom crash. They survived because they hoarded data.
My point was that every company going into the bubble thought they had a product they could monetize, but virtually all of them failed in favor of just hoarding everyone's data. Amazon and eBay were competing for ecomerce supremacy, but now even they are just privacy violators for various reasons (amazon via AWS and Alexa, eBay in the interest of detecting malicious account behaviour).
MySpace is an example of another unsustainable social media model in the vein of many dotcom era services. They died out as soon as Facebook realized they could hoard everyone's data.
All roads lead to privacy nightmares. It's the fossil fuel of the internet, and enshitification is the climate change.
I could swear Google wasn't broadly a thing yet. The startup I worked at in 1999 had an elevator pitch for how we "could be the next Yahoo." Not a great thing to aspire to in retrospect, but Google wasn't on our radar.
They were there and they were superior to the alternatives almost out of the gate. I was working for a video game company at the time and me and the rest of the IT dept made the switch almost immediately because the results were clearly superior. Made me an advocate for them for years, probably far beyond where I should have given up. I am not sure which product cancellation finally changed my mind on them. Probably it was around the mess of Google Talk/Chat/Hangouts mess of apps.
You're right, they weren't a "household name" yet. But they were probably more than a little worried about surviving at the time. Turns out they picked the winning strategy.
Like every time windows is mentioned the Linux users come out to try to convert people. You guys are so fucking annoying. Just make a post about Linux. We dont want your shit ass OS. We need one which actually runs the software we use.
Guess the posts are good to block these annoying Linuxers
I see where you're coming from but you aren't really speaking for the majority on lemmy. We are more open to open source projects and linux around here.
Unfortunately, I also have to use windows for some things, but microsoft and windows 11 are hot garbage, just like your attitude.
Please try not to escalate comment threads that are already tense. Remember to be(e) nice. I think think it is understandable that someone might be frustrated with the regular, low effort responses to practically any mention of Windows or a number of other topics.
No worries. I don't think anybody in the comments here have crossed any lines yet; I'm just trying to defuse things before they get to that point. I'm finding that !technology is one of the communities where we're most likely to have to lock threads or remove comments, other than maybe !politics, and I'm trying to be more proactive about reminding folks to deescalate when things get tense.
This is one of the things I love about the Lemmy community.
No one wants to argue, every one can be passionate about their opinions, but still respect other people’s passion.
It's not helpful because it's not discussing content but attacking a person's character. This leads to emotions running high rather than letting your reasoning win the discussion.
When there's a post about privacy issues, expect alternatives with more privacy be mentioned. It's just that there are so many moments that big corporations violate user's privacy nowadays, so that's why you see it that often.
Hey, I totally get your frustration here, but in the future please keep in mind the primary ethos on Beehaw and try to be nice in your comments here. I sympathize with how irritating the constant barrage of "just install arch" as if that's a simple fix for every problem, and I think it would be valuable for users on this forum to think about this before they comment, but let's try to stay respectful and kind to other users. Thanks!
I used Linux back in the 90s as my primary OS. They were simpler times. Since then I have used BeOS, various versions of Windows and (primarily) MacOS.
I am seriously thinking of going over to Linux as my primary OS because of all the TechBro “AI” bullshit that Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and Google are trying to ram down our throats.
I feel like schemes like this warrant a law that you're failing your fiduciary duty as a company owner and can be sued by any of the stakeholders for it if you can't prove failure to at least break even is due to genuine misfortune. Not even gross incompetence, that should just get you sacked with a dunce cap on top of having the company broken off and sold to a bidder that isn't hellbent on stripping it for parts.
That or company owners are only allowed to draw funds from the company's profits and funds coming from anywhere else, including from layoffs and corner cutting, are seized at 150% the value stolen and the company owners involved get treated as though they had committed embezzling so long as the books can indicate that the executives and owners drew more in compensation than was recorded as profit.
So basically, any time a company lets people go that’s stealing, and you want there to be a court thing that judges whether any particular loss was due to mismanagement or “genuine misfortune”?
That seems like a pretty extreme response to high delivery fees don’t you think?
If the executives could have just had less pay, yes, cutting someone off from their entire livelihood is theft. Especially if there wasn't even cause like criminal behavior or inexcusable misconduct.
And I think it's perfectly fair to just assume executives are lying about everything they say since *gestures wildly at all the everything since as far back as Smedly Butler.
I have really mixed feelings about this. My stance is that I don’t you should need permission to train on somebody else’s work since that is far too restrictive on what people can do with the music (or anything else) they paid for. This assumes it was obtained fairly: buying the tracks of iTunes or similar and not torrenting them or dumping the library from a streaming service. Of course, this can change if a song it taken down from stores (you can’t buy it) or the price is so high that a normal person buying a small amount of songs could not afford them (say 50 USD a track). Same goes for non-commercial remixing and distribution. This is why I thinking judging these models and services on output is fairer: as long as you don’t reproduce the work you trained on I think that should be fine. Now this needs some exceptions: producing a summary, parody, heavily-changed version/sample (of these, I think this is the only one that is not protected already despite widespread use in music already).
So putting this all together: the AIs mentioned seem to have re-produced partial copies of some of their training data, but it required fairly tortured prompts (I think some even provided lyrics in the prompt to get there) to do so since there are protections in place to prevent 1:1 reproductions; in my experience Suno rejects requests that involve artist names and one of the examples puts spaces between the letters of “Mariah”. But the AIs did do it. I’m not sure what to do with this. There have been lawsuits over samples and melodies so this is at least even handed Human vs AI wise. I’ve seen some pretty egregious copies of melodies too outside remixed and bootlegs to so these protections aren’t useless. I don’t know if maybe more work can be done to essentially Content ID AI output first to try and reduce this in the future? That said, if you wanted to just avoid paying for a song there are much easier ways to do it than getting a commercial AI service to make a poor quality replica. The lawsuit has some merit in that the AI produced replicas it shouldn’t have, but much of this wreaks of the kind of overreach that drives people to torrents in the first place.
My take is that you can train AI on whatever you want for research purposes, but if you brazenly distribute models trained on other people's content, you should be liable for theft, especially if you are profiting off of it.
Just because AI has so much potential doesn't mean we should be reckless and abusive with it. Just because we can build a plagiarism machine capable of reproducing facsimiles of humanity doesn't mean that how we are building that is ethical or legal.
Copyright infringement becomes theft when you make money off of someone else's work, which is the goal of every one of these AI companies. I 100% mean theft.
That's funny but I think Son is easily the dumbest billionaire. He's also the bag-holder for the whole WeWork grift. Got more dollars than brain cells.
I mean, Jesus famously overcharged on delivery and transaction fees when feeding the masses with all that miraculously created bread and fish while also losing 13 billion dollars in the process, somehow, right?
Technology
Active
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).